I've just read this short article twice to understand it and here are my notes:

Firstly, "Good" is always written alone, denoting a way of being, a domain or a position. Asymetrically "Bad" is never written alone, it is always mentioned as "bad deeds" or "being bad" throughout the article. Therefore, the author passifies the "Good" while mobilizing the bad. This asymmetrical approach as traced in wordings firstly rests the whole discussion on shaky ground. Where are the good deeds in the argument? Is good merely a position?

Secondly, is the whole argument merely a suggestion on how difficult it may appear to a person to become good as opposed to easily being bad? Are we being told the occasional performance of bad-deeds are a good comfort zone, in comparison to endless self-sacrifice of becoming good?

My two mere suggestions to the author:

- If a person wants to argue or a make a statement on such fragile and widely misinterpreted grounds such as good and bad, he/she should really put in the utmost effort to create a most plain, straightforward language serving a well-defined set of statements. This article fails to do so.

- To deal with good and bad, and to rest it on very solid ground, I may suggest philosophy of Spinoza to the author. Having understood such a structured approach, one can proceed to deal with the matter in a much more structured methodology.

My quick notes on these:

Regarding the designs

Personally, I liked the designs where basic geometrical shapes are used in varying color, size and positions rather than those who refer to ready-made concepts outside of the design for their symbolic value, like the devil (mask), cross and dollar sign. I also agree with the critique below on "hedonism" design, referring to female body.

Regarding the motivations

These illustrations might have the capacity to be of use to people whose paths never crossed these concepts or philosophy in general, hopefully triggering an interest to follow up in more detail.

It is at the same time very risky creating an aesthetic image and visual perception for works of thoughts (and it is increasingly common today) These are not album covers, these concepts which represent hundreds of years of thinking in human history should not be taken as lightly, falsely creating a belief that they can be understood with couple of designs followed by couple of articles. Additionally, some of them are straightforward misleading, such as the inverted cross for Atheism, and this is precisely the risk in applying works of thought to design principles. Does Atheism define itself through a religion, or is it inversion of religion? No. And why a particular religion? (Atheism and Anti-christ are not the same thing.)

And thank you for sharing it. It has given me an additional idea on a theme I am working on.